Sunday, December 25, 2011


Study of the Word of God comes with an incredible responsibility to be true to that Word.  One cannot merely “come up” with “new ideas” and then attempt to find Scriptural passages that seem to substantiate or validate those ideas.  One must conduct an exegetical study of the Word and intentionally avoid eisegesis.  These are two opposing means of studying the Scripture.  Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis, which would include context, word study, and looking at the Scripture in light of other Scripture.  Conclusions are arrived at by a thorough examination of the Biblical text.  The opposite approach to studying the Word is eisegesis, in which the interpretation of a passage is based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis means, “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas”[1] which means the interpreter inserts his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants it to mean.

Andrew Farley seems to have done just that—he has come up with ideas that sound really good at first blush, but when compared with the Word, they fail.  When he refers to Scripture to “back up” his ideas, there is an obvious disconnect in the majority of instances.  Rather than conduct an exegetical study of the text, Farley has conducted an eisegetical study—forcing the Scripture to fit his personal preconceived biases and notions.

For that reason alone, his argument fails.  However, the analysis will continue.

NEXT:  Farley Part III:  The Gospel

No comments:

Post a Comment